SHIRLEY SCHOOL

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21973, 23 December 1936, Page 13

SHIRLEY SCHOOL

to tub editor of the pbim Sir, —Could you please grant rne space to comment on a statement made by the chairman of the Shirley School Committee that a recent meeting held at the school was “stacked” and canvassed. The chairman of the School Committee (Mr S. J. Geary) himself called the meeting at the suggestion of the board, following a petition from former members of the School Committee. The meeting was held to protest against the injustice of the late caretaker's dismissal. If the meeting was “stacked” it was owing to the School Committee's failure to provide sufficient seating for all present. As to the canvassing, it was necessary to notify householders t! t the meeting was called for that particular night. Because of the miniature advertisement inserted by Mr Geary, most of us had failed to see it, I. myself, was unaware that the meeting was to take place until late on the previous afternoon. All those householders notified by us were genuine Shirley school district residents. Mr Geary is a resident of the Richmond school district, and knows only a comparative few of the householders of the Shirlev district. I have read Mr Bradley’s letter and wish to state that he had nothing whatever to do with it. All those who signed the petition were personally acquainted with Mr Sams and had the opportunity of judging his work over a period of years, whereas only three of the present committee had ever seen him. The meeting was a good one and the fight on our part a clean one.— Yours, etc., C. McKAY. December 22, 1936. TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS, Sir, —In icply to the footnote by the chairman of the Shirley School Committee in “The Press” of Tuesday, I should like to point out that the householders who elected the committee have indicated in no uncertain manner to that body by their vote of no confidence at the mass meeting protesting against the unwarranted dismissal of the caretaker, that they wanted no more of the present committee. The chairman says in reply to your correspondent that an efficient caretaker has been appointed. This may be so, but vve do know and so do the' teaching staff, the former teaching staff and former committeemen, that a Serious injustice has been done to a gentleman caretaker, and we want to see this Rectified. The chairman simply brushes aside the vote of no-confidence in himself and the committee by saying that they are - taking no further action in the matter. Will the secretary of the Education Board please advise the several hundred indignant Shirley householders through your columns what action it is necessary for them to take to unseat the Shirley Primary School Committee.—Yours, etc., JUSTICE. December 21, 1936. TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir,—As one who has taken a very keen interest in the Shirley School for the last 14 years, I am at a loss to understand the high-handed method the chairman of the school committee has adopted over the resolution passed by the meeting of householders held on December 2. Most of the committeemen are employees of some firm, and I wonder what they would have thought had they been treated as they treated the caretaker, Mr Sams, in terminating his services. It is now quite apparent that the committee is ignoring the wish of the householders, and there is now only

one alternative in my judgment, and that is to call a further meeting of householders and forward our requests to the Minister for Education. I am quite confident that if this meeting is held it will certainly be more largely attended than on the previous occasion.

In a democratic country such as ours. I really did think the committee would have acted in a reasonable manner. and have given at least some consideration to the requests of the householders. I would suggest a meeting of the householders be held early in the New Year.—Yours, etc.. HOUSEHOLDER. December 22. 1936.